At 2/10/2016 3:55:15 PM, liltankjj wrote:Why is it such a problem for the government to lose money. I would imagine that it would be beneficial to the people fiscally.

Because the government "losing money" means literally taking money out of the economy -- and at a time when the Fed isn't able to perfectly offset spending cuts because its nominal policy rate is close to zero and unconventional tools are highly uncertain. Most research on fiscal multipliers finds that a dollar in spending cuts takes about a dollar and a half out of NGDP.

At 2/10/2016 3:55:15 PM, liltankjj wrote:Why is it such a problem for the government to lose money. I would imagine that it would be beneficial to the people fiscally.

Because the government "losing money" means literally taking money out of the economy -- and at a time when the Fed isn't able to perfectly offset spending cuts because its nominal policy rate is close to zero and unconventional tools are highly uncertain. Most research on fiscal multipliers finds that a dollar in spending cuts takes about a dollar and a half out of NGDP.

At 2/10/2016 3:55:15 PM, liltankjj wrote:Why is it such a problem for the government to lose money. I would imagine that it would be beneficial to the people fiscally.

Because the government "losing money" means literally taking money out of the economy -- and at a time when the Fed isn't able to perfectly offset spending cuts because its nominal policy rate is close to zero and unconventional tools are highly uncertain. Most research on fiscal multipliers finds that a dollar in spending cuts takes about a dollar and a half out of NGDP.

At 2/10/2016 3:55:15 PM, liltankjj wrote:Why is it such a problem for the government to lose money. I would imagine that it would be beneficial to the people fiscally.

Because the government "losing money" means literally taking money out of the economy -- and at a time when the Fed isn't able to perfectly offset spending cuts because its nominal policy rate is close to zero and unconventional tools are highly uncertain. Most research on fiscal multipliers finds that a dollar in spending cuts takes about a dollar and a half out of NGDP.

This misunderstanding is due to my lack of clarity. I meant mainly on cutting income as in taxes.

This misunderstanding is due to my lack of clarity. I meant mainly on cutting income as in taxes.

Okay -- same issue: it deprives the government of revenue, in which case government spending would likely tank. The bulk of the tax cuts would be geared toward the affluent, who are the least likely to actually consume with those dollars, which means that AD on balance declines.

This misunderstanding is due to my lack of clarity. I meant mainly on cutting income as in taxes.

Okay -- same issue: it deprives the government of revenue, in which case government spending would likely tank. The bulk of the tax cuts would be geared toward the affluent, who are the least likely to actually consume with those dollars, which means that AD on balance declines.

But why does the government need so much revenue? I have little problem with spending tanking. I must familiarize myself with the term affluent.

At 2/10/2016 9:49:12 PM, liltankjj wrote:But why does the government need so much revenue? I have little problem with spending tanking. I must familiarize myself with the term affluent.

Affluent just means rich -- we can disagree on what constitutes "rich," but the current top tax rate applies to incomes over roughly $450k, so arguably that's a reasonable starting point.

Your other question is just really ambiguous. Who says it's collecting "so much revenue"? Obviously nominal dollars is a pretty flawed metric since the US is the largest economy. As a percent of GDP, we spend a lot less than most European economies who provide, for instance, free healthcare and education to their citizens. This is honestly a normative judgment as to how much you would actually expect from government, though obviously there are costs associated either with shrinking or growing it -- I happen to think the costs of shrinking it are far greater.

Affluent just means rich -- we can disagree on what constitutes "rich," but the current top tax rate applies to incomes over roughly $450k, so arguably that's a reasonable starting point.

Your other question is just really ambiguous. Who says it's collecting "so much revenue"? Obviously nominal dollars is a pretty flawed metric since the US is the largest economy. As a percent of GDP, we spend a lot less than most European economies who provide, for instance, free healthcare and education to their citizens. This is honestly a normative judgment as to how much you would actually expect from government, though obviously there are costs associated either with shrinking or growing it -- I happen to think the costs of shrinking it are far greater.

I would like to understand why you think the cost would be greater for shrinking the government, It isn't that obvious to me. I am also under the impression that the US isn't the largest economy anymore. I can be mistaken so don't hold me to it. I feel the amount of money we as citizens are taxed is quite outrageous. This is what leads me to believe The government is taking in a bit much.

At 2/11/2016 5:38:43 PM, liltankjj wrote:I would like to understand why you think the cost would be greater for shrinking the government, It isn't that obvious to me.

Sure -- there are some things that governments do better than the so-called "free market." We generally call these social goods. For instance, private charities can't adequately combat the magnitude of poverty, so government welfare -- which involves redistributing from high- to low-income earners -- is necessary insofar as we want to ameliorate this harm. In the process, we're redistributing income away from people who aren't likely to spend that money (rich people) to people who are much more likely to spend it (poor people).

Think of it this way: what would you cut? Give me a program, and I'll give you a cost. There's only so much "waste and fraud" you can really slash from government.

I am also under the impression that the US isn't the largest economy anymore.

Depends on how you measure. I think, adjusted for PPP, China is slightly larger. It's not by much, though.

I can be mistaken so don't hold me to it.

I'm pretty sure you're right.

I feel the amount of money we as citizens are taxed is quite outrageous.

Okay, I mean... that's a normative judgment and depends a whole lot on how you make, what state you're from, how you earn your income, and, perhaps, how much you receive, if anything, from government.

This is what leads me to believe The government is taking in a bit much.

Again, that's a really subjective judgment, and more likely a moral question than an economic one -- unless you want to focus on the tangible effects of a shift in the policy regime, which downsizing -- or, for that matter, upsizing -- the government would necessarily entail.

At 2/11/2016 5:38:43 PM, liltankjj wrote:I would like to understand why you think the cost would be greater for shrinking the government, It isn't that obvious to me.

Sure -- there are some things that governments do better than the so-called "free market." We generally call these social goods. For instance, private charities can't adequately combat the magnitude of poverty, so government welfare -- which involves redistributing from high- to low-income earners -- is necessary insofar as we want to ameliorate this harm. In the process, we're redistributing income away from people who aren't likely to spend that money (rich people) to people who are much more likely to spend it (poor people).

Well, I also don't like the idea of wealth distribution. That seems a lot like socialism. I have a problem with too much socialism. Allow me to clarify, Social programs are relative in a few areas for federal use. The military as an example. But too much can be damaging. To my understanding Socialism does not encourage individuality. I believe the individual is important for growth. Now at a more local level controlled and ran by a small community, that is different. Per example, If I have a neighbor struggling on my street and I know they are having a hard time simply getting food in their home. I can help the out by simply throwing a cookout and inviting them. The entire neighborhood can get involved. The best part about this type of socialism is that it wasn't forced. Socialism at a federal level can get very dangerous due to force and the attacks on individualism. If you really want to help someone get better I say we should encourage and guide them to improvement. That's the best help someone could ever get.

At 2/13/2016 4:49:47 AM, liltankjj wrote:Well, I also don't like the idea of wealth distribution. That seems a lot like socialism.

The existence of government requires that there be a redistribution of wealth -- people pay taxes and stuff gets funded, whether it's redistributing to defense contractors or to poor people. The only difference is that people sympathetic to your position only complain about the latter, lol.

I have a problem with too much socialism.

What is "too much socialism"? This isn't really addressing my comment that this incredibly subjective.

Allow me to clarify, Social programs are relative in a few areas for federal use. The military as an example. But too much can be damaging.

Sure, I'd agree with that -- but the military as an example is just too easy, lol. I mean, look at the numbers... it's more than the next 14 countries combined. It's a lot easier to argue against defense spending than it is against food stamps.

To my understanding Socialism does not encourage individuality. I believe the individual is important for growth.

They're not mutually exclusive, for sure, but sure -- the idea of a welfare state has undertones of "we're all in this together." A Randian focus on individualism isn't exactly all that great either.

Now at a more local level controlled and ran by a small community, that is different.

I've never really understood the big difference.. if big government unto itself is scary, how in the world does localizing it make it any better? Lol. Rich people will still object to paying taxes, they'll still want to fund the defense industry as lavishly as ever, even if it requires literally ripping food out of childrens' mouths, etc.

Per example, If I have a neighbor struggling on my street and I know they are having a hard time simply getting food in their home. I can help the out by simply throwing a cookout and inviting them. The entire neighborhood can get involved. The best part about this type of socialism is that it wasn't forced.

Hosting a cookout and inviting your neighbor isn't socialism, lol....

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about a Ron-Paul-esque "leave everything to the states!" type mantra, whereby a state could be socialistic, but the federal government surely could not. Usually "leave it to the states" is one giant cop out.

Socialism at a federal level can get very dangerous due to force and the attacks on individualism. If you really want to help someone get better I say we should encourage and guide them to improvement. That's the best help someone could ever get.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's a bit hard to "guide someone to improvement" if they're about to die from starvation.

At 2/13/2016 4:49:47 AM, liltankjj wrote:Well, I also don't like the idea of wealth distribution. That seems a lot like socialism.

The existence of government requires that there be a redistribution of wealth -- people pay taxes and stuff gets funded, whether it's redistributing to defense contractors or to poor people. The only difference is that people sympathetic to your position only complain about the latter, lol.

I complain about all of it.

I have a problem with too much socialism.

What is "too much socialism"? This isn't really addressing my comment that this incredibly subjective.

Too much is any of it.

Allow me to clarify, Social programs are relative in a few areas for federal use. The military as an example. But too much can be damaging.

Sure, I'd agree with that -- but the military as an example is just too easy, lol. I mean, look at the numbers... it's more than the next 14 countries combined. It's a lot easier to argue against defense spending than it is against food stamps.

True dat, despite both being unethical and damaging.

To my understanding Socialism does not encourage individuality. I believe the individual is important for growth.

They're not mutually exclusive, for sure, but sure -- the idea of a welfare state has undertones of "we're all in this together." A Randian focus on individualism isn't exactly all that great either.

Yes it is.

Now at a more local level controlled and ran by a small community, that is different.

I've never really understood the big difference.. if big government unto itself is scary, how in the world does localizing it make it any better? Lol. Rich people will still object to paying taxes, they'll still want to fund the defense industry as lavishly as ever, even if it requires literally ripping food out of childrens' mouths, etc.

Per example, If I have a neighbor struggling on my street and I know they are having a hard time simply getting food in their home. I can help the out by simply throwing a cookout and inviting them. The entire neighborhood can get involved. The best part about this type of socialism is that it wasn't forced.

Hosting a cookout and inviting your neighbor isn't socialism, lol....

True dat

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about a Ron-Paul-esque "leave everything to the states!" type mantra, whereby a state could be socialistic, but the federal government surely could not. Usually "leave it to the states" is one giant cop out.

Not really. It's one thing for me to engage in a socialist system where I have a reasonable amount of inflence on, but to do it on a national scale involves shoving it down a communities throat that may not want it.

Socialism at a federal level can get very dangerous due to force and the attacks on individualism. If you really want to help someone get better I say we should encourage and guide them to improvement. That's the best help someone could ever get.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's a bit hard to "guide someone to improvement" if they're about to die from starvation.

Typical liberal myth. Nobody is dying of starvation in America. I have had times in my life where I've exclusively eaten Ramen noodles for 6 months out of the year, everyone has the ability to atleast panhandle and get a dollar, which lasts an entire day.

At 2/13/2016 6:19:27 AM, Wylted wrote:Not really. It's one thing for me to engage in a socialist system where I have a reasonable amount of inflence on, but to do it on a national scale involves shoving it down a communities throat that may not want it.

And that community has a right to pursue policies tailored to its liking, though many of these issues -- healthcare regs are a great example -- are far too important and broad-based to be handled at a purely local level. The same goes for labor laws: Texas can't, and should not, have the ability to bring back child labor tomorrow.

Typical liberal myth. Nobody is dying of starvation in America. I have had times in my life where I've exclusively eaten Ramen noodles for 6 months out of the year, everyone has the ability to atleast panhandle and get a dollar, which lasts an entire day.

This is just completely untrue, and your anecdotes -- even *if* something like that was possible to you -- do not define the norm. That's a typical libertarian fantasy, as well: trust anecdotes over statistics, especially when those statistics contradict your ideological agenda (though they're fine when they agree with the story you're trying tot ell, of course).

At 2/13/2016 6:19:27 AM, Wylted wrote:Not really. It's one thing for me to engage in a socialist system where I have a reasonable amount of inflence on, but to do it on a national scale involves shoving it down a communities throat that may not want it.

And that community has a right to pursue policies tailored to its liking, though many of these issues -- healthcare regs are a great example -- are far too important and broad-based to be handled at a purely local level. The same goes for labor laws: Texas can't, and should not, have the ability to bring back child labor tomorrow.

Typical liberal myth. Nobody is dying of starvation in America. I have had times in my life where I've exclusively eaten Ramen noodles for 6 months out of the year, everyone has the ability to atleast panhandle and get a dollar, which lasts an entire day.

This is just completely untrue, and your anecdotes -- even *if* something like that was possible to you -- do not define the norm. That's a typical libertarian fantasy, as well: trust anecdotes over statistics, especially when those statistics contradict your ideological agenda (though they're fine when they agree with the story you're trying tot ell, of course).

What stats disagree with that? How many children die of starvation in America every year? It's amazing that as many poor people that exist as a result of keynesians, there aren't more children dying of starvation, but the fact is the stats are on my side there.

It's amazing that as many poor people that exist as a result of keynesians, there aren't more children dying of starvation, but the fact is the stats are on my side there.

Total fcking bullsh1t, and if the think the policies we've been following in recent years are "Keynesian," you don't know what Keynesianism is.

A lot of people have this tendency to toss the word out there as though the lack of existence of some libertarian utopia is evidence that we're adhering to the doctrine of Keynes. I think Keynes, if he were alive today, would object to this notion greatly. Hell, he even saw the New Deal as insufficient.

At 2/13/2016 4:49:47 AM, liltankjj wrote:Well, I also don't like the idea of wealth distribution. That seems a lot like socialism.

The existence of government requires that there be a redistribution of wealth -- people pay taxes and stuff gets funded, whether it's redistributing to defense contractors or to poor people. The only difference is that people sympathetic to your position only complain about the latter, lol.

I can agree, a government can't sustain itself, but it must be controlled are it can be highly destructive. If I'm not mistaken Gorge Washington was quoted comparing government to fire. "a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

I have a problem with too much socialism.

What is "too much socialism"? This isn't really addressing my comment that this incredibly subjective.

I have very subjective views about socialism. But it's influenced off of my studies on it.

Allow me to clarify, Social programs are relative in a few areas for federal use. The military as an example. But too much can be damaging.

Sure, I'd agree with that -- but the military as an example is just too easy, lol. I mean, look at the numbers... it's more than the next 14 countries combined. It's a lot easier to argue against defense spending than it is against food stamps.

I have a small issue with food stamps as well. Mainly the abuse of the system and lack of honesty from people.

To my understanding Socialism does not encourage individuality. I believe the individual is important for growth.

They're not mutually exclusive, for sure, but sure -- the idea of a welfare state has undertones of "we're all in this together." A Randian focus on individualism isn't exactly all that great either.

There is relevance here. When I speak of individualism I look at it like a chain. Made up of individual links, The chain is only as strong as the bond between each one. If this logic reigns true, then the individual of a group of people must be strengthened for a stronger community, nation, family, etc.

Now at a more local level controlled and ran by a small community, that is different.

I've never really understood the big difference.. if big government unto itself is scary, how in the world does localizing it make it any better? Lol. Rich people will still object to paying taxes, they'll still want to fund the defense industry as lavishly as ever, even if it requires literally ripping food out of childrens' mouths, etc.

I don't believe the rich have a problem with taxes. I believe they have a problem being targeted directly whenever the left decides the government needs more funds. Personally, If I was rich I would have no problem helping people but if I am being forced to help then it is a different story. I also feel that your shot at funding the defense industry was kind of a reach. I have to give it to the rich I wouldn't be where I am now if they weren't so willing to make money. Now just let me get where I need to be so I can do the same for some one else.

Per example, If I have a neighbor struggling on my street and I know they are having a hard time simply getting food in their home. I can help the out by simply throwing a cookout and inviting them. The entire neighborhood can get involved. The best part about this type of socialism is that it wasn't forced.

Hosting a cookout and inviting your neighbor isn't socialism, lol....

I agree it isn't, I said this because socialism is usually sold under the guise that they are helping people. SO that is just a way I would help. I just don't want to be forced to.

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about a Ron-Paul-esque "leave everything to the states!" type mantra, whereby a state could be socialistic, but the federal government surely could not. Usually "leave it to the states" is one giant cop out.

I actually understand where Paul gets at with that. It is much easier to challenge a state government than the federal government. But In the same voice, I feel that people are our true power. I was speaking of a communityR03; helping each other but not handicapping each other.

Socialism at a federal level can get very dangerous due to force and the attacks on individualism. If you really want to help someone get better I say we should encourage and guide them to improvement. That's the best help someone could ever get.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's a bit hard to "guide someone to improvement" if they're about to die from starvation.

Well, dying of starvation is quite a stretch I would say. If someone is that hungry then feed them, but guide them in ways where they can avoid being in the same situation. Socialism makes people codependent. We should encourage more independence in people.

It doesn't mention dying of starvation. It mentions shaky terms like food security. Does that mean living paycheck to paycheck because of Keynesian policy?

You won't see any mention of the death stats, always shaky stuff like the word malnourished, when even most fat people who eat well can be considered under nourished.

It's amazing that as many poor people that exist as a result of keynesians, there aren't more children dying of starvation, but the fact is the stats are on my side there.

Total fcking bullsh1t, and if the think the policies we've been following in recent years are "Keynesian," you don't know what Keynesianism is.

A lot of people have this tendency to toss the word out there as though the lack of existence of some libertarian utopia is evidence that we're adhering to the doctrine of Keynes. I think Keynes, if he were alive today, would object to this notion greatly. Hell, he even saw the New Deal as insufficient.

Oh so just about every economist with influence over policies is not Keynesian? You learn something new everyday.

I've lived under the policies of the technocrats you worship, it's not good stuff. Instead of having blind faith in something merely because it is the status quo and has texr booky sounding stuff in it as a weak attempt of legitimizing it's absurdity, why don't you do your research on it?

It's no surprise that evil piece of crap would say that the new deal doesn't go far enough.

At 2/13/2016 4:49:47 AM, liltankjj wrote:Well, I also don't like the idea of wealth distribution. That seems a lot like socialism.

The existence of government requires that there be a redistribution of wealth -- people pay taxes and stuff gets funded, whether it's redistributing to defense contractors or to poor people. The only difference is that people sympathetic to your position only complain about the latter, lol.

I complain about all of it.

I have a problem with too much socialism.

What is "too much socialism"? This isn't really addressing my comment that this incredibly subjective.

Too much is any of it.

Allow me to clarify, Social programs are relative in a few areas for federal use. The military as an example. But too much can be damaging.

Sure, I'd agree with that -- but the military as an example is just too easy, lol. I mean, look at the numbers... it's more than the next 14 countries combined. It's a lot easier to argue against defense spending than it is against food stamps.

True dat, despite both being unethical and damaging.

To my understanding Socialism does not encourage individuality. I believe the individual is important for growth.

They're not mutually exclusive, for sure, but sure -- the idea of a welfare state has undertones of "we're all in this together." A Randian focus on individualism isn't exactly all that great either.

Yes it is.

Now at a more local level controlled and ran by a small community, that is different.

I've never really understood the big difference.. if big government unto itself is scary, how in the world does localizing it make it any better? Lol. Rich people will still object to paying taxes, they'll still want to fund the defense industry as lavishly as ever, even if it requires literally ripping food out of childrens' mouths, etc.

Per example, If I have a neighbor struggling on my street and I know they are having a hard time simply getting food in their home. I can help the out by simply throwing a cookout and inviting them. The entire neighborhood can get involved. The best part about this type of socialism is that it wasn't forced.

Hosting a cookout and inviting your neighbor isn't socialism, lol....

True dat

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about a Ron-Paul-esque "leave everything to the states!" type mantra, whereby a state could be socialistic, but the federal government surely could not. Usually "leave it to the states" is one giant cop out.

Not really. It's one thing for me to engage in a socialist system where I have a reasonable amount of inflence on, but to do it on a national scale involves shoving it down a communities throat that may not want it.

Socialism at a federal level can get very dangerous due to force and the attacks on individualism. If you really want to help someone get better I say we should encourage and guide them to improvement. That's the best help someone could ever get.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's a bit hard to "guide someone to improvement" if they're about to die from starvation.

Typical liberal myth. Nobody is dying of starvation in America. I have had times in my life where I've exclusively eaten Ramen noodles for 6 months out of the year, everyone has the ability to atleast panhandle and get a dollar, which lasts an entire day.

At 2/13/2016 7:09:18 AM, liltankjj wrote:I can agree, a government can't sustain itself, but it must be controlled are it can be highly destructive. If I'm not mistaken Gorge Washington was quoted comparing government to fire. "a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Destructive.... how?

I hear this a lot: I think an ideological fixation -- as though out of an Ayn Rand novel -- that government is always the problem and never the solution, based on fairy tales about "government tyranny" are the real problem. You've yet to provide me with an actual argument as to the destruction of government, except "I subjectively believe the government is too large."

I have very subjective views about socialism. But it's influenced off of my studies on it.

And what is that view? This doesn't reply to my question. I read a lot about this as well, and the evidence is pretty unequivocal: it doesn't lead where you think it leads.

I have a small issue with food stamps as well. Mainly the abuse of the system and lack of honesty from people.

The 1 percent abuse rate, you mean?

I swear, the assumptions people make when it comes to poor people -- standards that are never applied to the rich and their blessed oil subsidies -- never cease to amaze me. It is a libertarian folklore that abuse of social programs is rampant used to justify a dangerous, rigid ideology. That's all there is to it.

There is relevance here. When I speak of individualism I look at it like a chain. Made up of individual links, The chain is only as strong as the bond between each one. If this logic reigns true, then the individual of a group of people must be strengthened for a stronger community, nation, family, etc.

This is honestly akin to the type of platitudes I hear from Rubio and friends about people "pulling themselves up by their boot straps." I've yet to see you actually advance a single substantive argument to that end.

I don't believe the rich have a problem with taxes. I believe they have a problem being targeted directly whenever the left decides the government needs more funds.

Do you really want to get into the politics of this? Every time I hear someone refer to "the left," I absolutely fcking cringe.

No, the rich aren't targeted by the so-called left -- but they should be, because that's where the money is. To the contrary, poor people are targeted every time crusaders, such as yourself, decide that feeding poor people is a form of socialism -- or that the government is too big, so fck Social Security because.... socialism.

Personally, If I was rich I would have no problem helping people but if I am being forced to help then it is a different story.

If you think we can eradicate poverty by relying on the voluntary contributions of the Rupert Murdoch's of the world -- I understand that this is hyperbole, but it's the best way to advance this point -- then you're living in an Ayn Rand novel.

I also feel that your shot at funding the defense industry was kind of a reach.

It's not. The defense industry isn't targeted enough as a God-damned fat cat. If you really want to talk about fraud in government, and are actually targeting food stamps as opposed to Pentagon spending, I can draw one of two conclusions: either you don't know the facts or you're just ignorant and/or ideologically entrenched, much like Wylted. You can tell me which is true.

I have to give it to the rich I wouldn't be where I am now if they weren't so willing to make money. Now just let me get where I need to be so I can do the same for some one else.

That's the whole God-damned point of a government that actively tries to ensure equality of opportunity.

*facepalm*

I agree it isn't, I said this because socialism is usually sold under the guise that they are helping people. SO that is just a way I would help. I just don't want to be forced to.

See above comment on voluntary donations.

And... the fact that you can provide me an anecdote as to how you can help people without being "forced" is the absolute worst kind of fallacy of composition I have ever seen.

I actually understand where Paul gets at with that. It is much easier to challenge a state government than the federal government. But In the same voice, I feel that people are our true power. I was speaking of a communityR03; helping each other but not handicapping each other.

I made some points in response to Wylted on this. They also apply here.

Well, dying of starvation is quite a stretch I would say.

No, it actually isn't -- finding fraud in food stamps is. Or calling food stamps "socialist." Or having less of a problem with the bloated defense budget than with feeding poor people. It's not only horrible economics; it's horrible morality.

If someone is that hungry then feed them, but guide them in ways where they can avoid being in the same situation. Socialism makes people codependent. We should encourage more independence in people.

The last two sentences are libertarian platitudes. The former makes the incredibly broad (and therefore wrong) assumption that people are poor by virtue of their own decisions. I understand that, in libertarian circles, these arguments are taken as gospel, lest the ideology fall apart, but this just is not remotely true -- or, at the very least, you haven't proven it as such.

At 2/13/2016 6:19:27 AM, Wylted wrote:Not really. It's one thing for me to engage in a socialist system where I have a reasonable amount of inflence on, but to do it on a national scale involves shoving it down a communities throat that may not want it.

And that community has a right to pursue policies tailored to its liking, though many of these issues -- healthcare regs are a great example -- are far too important and broad-based to be handled at a purely local level. The same goes for labor laws: Texas can't, and should not, have the ability to bring back child labor tomorrow.

Typical liberal myth. Nobody is dying of starvation in America. I have had times in my life where I've exclusively eaten Ramen noodles for 6 months out of the year, everyone has the ability to atleast panhandle and get a dollar, which lasts an entire day.

This is just completely untrue, and your anecdotes -- even *if* something like that was possible to you -- do not define the norm. That's a typical libertarian fantasy, as well: trust anecdotes over statistics, especially when those statistics contradict your ideological agenda (though they're fine when they agree with the story you're trying tot ell, of course).

It seems like your argument can be tossed up to anecdotes as well. I've spoken to homeless. Some are truly struggling, but a few are only taking advantage of others kindness. All in all, people need to be encouraged to seek self-improvement. helping someone by feeding them at a shelter just makes them more codependent which is the basis of socialism. The people being dependent on the state. We truly need to encourage and guide others to be able to stand on their own. This whole free thing is terribly delusional from what I see.

At 2/13/2016 7:25:43 AM, liltankjj wrote:It seems like your argument can be tossed up to anecdotes as well.

No, it can't.

I've spoken to homeless. Some are truly struggling, but a few are only taking advantage of others kindness.

This, on the other hand, is an incredibly stupid anecdote akin to "Hey, I have a black friend, so I'm not racist!" Just flip that to "I talked to a homeless kind" -- I doubt you did, by the way -- "so you can't say I hate homeless people."

All in all, people need to be encouraged to seek self-improvement. helping someone by feeding them at a shelter just makes them more codependent which is the basis of socialism. The people being dependent on the state. We truly need to encourage and guide others to be able to stand on their own.

Read what I just wrote to you above.

This whole free thing is terribly delusional from what I see.

No, everything you've written in this thread, to the contrary, is unbelievably subjective and delusional.

At 2/13/2016 7:14:05 AM, Wylted wrote:It doesn't mention dying of starvation. It mentions shaky terms like food security. Does that mean living paycheck to paycheck because of Keynesian policy?

It's close enough, and I'm sure there are statistics out there on mortality rates -- I couldn't find them in a 10-second google search, which is all I'm really willing to devote to something this fcking obvious. You said no one goes hungry, and you were wrong.

And stop using that word: You don't know what it means.

You won't see any mention of the death stats, always shaky stuff like the word malnourished, when even most fat people who eat well can be considered under nourished.

I bet you're on the same boat as a bunch of idiots on Fox who would say, "Hey, that guy is fat! There's no way he's undernourished."

That's how stupid the argument you just made is. I'd like to think I'm worth a bit more critical thought than that.

It's amazing that as many poor people that exist as a result of keynesians, there aren't more children dying of starvation, but the fact is the stats are on my side there.

Total fcking bullsh1t, and if the think the policies we've been following in recent years are "Keynesian," you don't know what Keynesianism is.

A lot of people have this tendency to toss the word out there as though the lack of existence of some libertarian utopia is evidence that we're adhering to the doctrine of Keynes. I think Keynes, if he were alive today, would object to this notion greatly. Hell, he even saw the New Deal as insufficient.

Oh so just about every economist with influence over policies is not Keynesian? You learn something new everyday.

No, they're really not. Not subscribing to your libertarian utopia doesn't make them an avowed Keynesian.

I've lived under the policies of the technocrats you worship, it's not good stuff.

I don't worship anyone. I think for myself.

Instead of having blind faith in something merely because it is the status quo and has texr booky sounding stuff in it as a weak attempt of legitimizing it's absurdity, why don't you do your research on it?

Do you not realize how unbelievably patronizing and insulting this is?

If you actually think this isn't something I've researched -- much less PRODUCED research on, as a matter of fact (or at least am in the process of producing work on) -- then you know absolutely nothing about me, and really shouldn't make judgments about how I supposedly came to believe what I do.

Fun fact: I used to have roughly the same economic views as you -- I was a crazy, Ron-Paul libertarian. Then I grew up.

It's no surprise that evil piece of crap would say that the new deal doesn't go far enough.

lmfao.

And he was right... it took WWII to get us out of the Depression. The Fed certainly wasn't pulling its weight.